snap_save

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the mutating-but-non-destructive, idempotent profile, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that values are 'expanded like rec_start' and scoped to parameters/recipes/FB instances, but omits what happens on a name collision, where snapshots are persisted, and any size limits implied by max_symbols.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence with the verb and the regression-comparison rationale front-loaded; little waste, though the parenthetical 'expanded like rec_start' assumes sibling knowledge.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with 5 undocumented parameters and no collision/persistence semantics, the definition leaves meaningful gaps for a tool that creates stored state.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden — yet it never mentions name, prefix, pattern, symbols, or max_symbols. The phrases 'parameters, recipes, whole FB instances' gesture at selectable scope but give no mapping to the selector parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Save a named snapshot of live values') with the purpose (regression comparison) and the scope of captured data. It does not explicitly name its siblings snap_compare/snap_list/snap_apply, so an agent must infer the routing rather than read it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'for regression comparison ... before/after a change' phrase implies when it is used, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. snap_compare for the comparison step, rec_snapshot for the recording equivalent).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.